Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Now's the time for a cross-partisan push to stop future abuse of presidential power

Donald Trump

Some of the proposals in PODA respond directly to vulnerabilities in presidential power exploited by the Trump administration, according to Dayton and Lindgrensavage.

Joe Raedle/Getty Image

Dayton is a policy advocate and Lindgrensavage is a counsel at Protect Democracy, a nonprofit group advocating for policies that "prevent our democracy from declining into a more authoritarian form of government." Dayton once worked for a GOP House member and Lindgrensavage for a Democratic senator.


Imagine this: The conduct of the previous presidential administration has crystallized the need for Congress to reassert its constitutional authority as a check on the executive branch.

The year is 2021, to be sure. But it was also 1974. In the wake of the Watergate scandal, lawmakers of both parties acted to address weaknesses in federal laws and government institutions that Richard Nixon had either created himself or exposed.

Nearly half a century later the Protecting Our Democracy Act, a package of good-government reforms first proposed by Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff of California in September, aims to take similar steps toward restoring guardrails on executive power. The legislation is on course for a reintroduction in the House this month.

To raise awareness about the bill and advocate for its passage, experts from half a dozen democracy reform advocacy groups from across the political spectrum have written pieces touting its various virtues. These will appear in the Opinion section of The Fulcrum in coming weeks.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

These individual analyses do not constitute an endorsement of the full package. What they demonstrate in combination, rather, is how the multifaceted measure draws from ideas proposed by Republicans and Democrats alike — and how Congress' constitutional prerogatives, not ideology, explain why they fit together.

The Protecting Our Democracy Act, which also goes by the acronym PODA, tackles a dozen different topics:

  • Limiting the president's pardon power.
  • Extending the deadline for prosecuting former presidents and vice presidents for federal crimes before or during their time in office.
  • Enforcing the constitutional ban on presidents using the office to enrich themselves.
  • Boosting enforcement of congressional subpoenas.
  • Reasserting Congress' power of the purse.
  • Mandating disclosure of contacts between the White House and Justice Department.
  • Strengthening protections for inspectors general.
  • Strengthening protections for federal whistleblowers.
  • Ensuring the Senate's say in confirming executive branch officials.
  • Bolstering enforcement of the Hatch Act.
  • Preventing foreign interference in elections.
  • Clarifying federal prohibitions on foreign assistance to campaigns.

Some of the proposals respond directly to vulnerabilities in presidential power exploited by the Trump administration, treating those abuses as lessons from which the need for reform must be learned.

It will remain difficult to hold future presidents accountable for violating the Emoluments Clause, the Constitution's ban on presidential profiteering, or attempting to sway the independence of the Justice Department, for example, without Congress creating mechanisms to guarantee such accountability.

Some of the proposals have a history of bipartisan backing — or began as Republican ideas. The provision to strengthen congressional control over the allocation of federal funds, for example, resembles a bill by Republican Sen. Mike Lee of Utah that the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee approved last year on an 11-2 vote. And improving protections for inspectors general and federal whistleblowers has been a longstanding priority of the most senior GOP senator, Chuck Grassley of Iowa..

The Protecting Our Democracy Act meets this current moment in two important ways.

First, it is the right response, and it is similar to a past, successful response in the aftermath to a similar period in our history. After Nixon's resignation, both Republican and Democratic lawmakers understood how his behavior had exposed weaknesses in the system of checks and balances that constrains presidential power, and they responded by enacting laws such as the Privacy Act and the Inspector General Act.

The parallels to today are now widely acknowledged by experts on the right, left and center. Trump "has revealed that the presidency is due for an overhaul for accountability akin to the 1974 reforms," Jack Goldsmith, an assistant attorney general in the George W. Bush administration, told the New York Times. (He and a White House counsel during the Obama administration, Robert Bauer, have come up with their own set of ideas for recalibrating the balance of power.)

Second, PODA responds to increasing numbers of lawmakers asking why their branch is so ineffective relative to the executive and the judiciary. Republican Sen. Ben Sasse of Nebraska, a frequent observer of this development, spent part of his time during last month's confirmation hearing for Attorney General Merrick Garland offering his views.

"I think it's a mix of overreach by Article II and underreach by Article I," he said, adding that it's not "as if everything that's wrong is chiefly outside the Congress, because I think we're probably chiefly to blame."

The Protecting Our Democracy Act gives Congress an opportunity to retake some of its authority and live up to its responsibility.

Ensuring the proper checks and balances between the executive and legislative branches is an ongoing obligation of Congress. But it hasn't kept pace in recent years with the expansion of presidential power or deterred presidents of both parties from exceeding — even abusing — their authority.

This House bill is a big first step on the path to catching up. The fact that Democrats are going to introduce this package when the president is a member of their party should not escape notice. Nor should the repeated instances of Republicans who have voiced concerns and floated measures about the relationship between the president and Congress. The opportunity to bring Republicans and Democrats together to act is now.

Read More

US Capitol

Each branch of government needs to get serious about restoring the public's trust.

Andrey Denisyuk/Getty Images

We need a government that works

Frazier is an assistant professor at the Crump College of Law at St. Thomas University and a Tarbell fellow.

The first — and really only — order of business for the government is to solve problems beyond the grasp of a single person or a small community. In exchange for that service, we the people surrender some of our income and liberty. This grand bargain breaks down when the government decides it’s got other things to do besides take care of everything from our sewage to our space debris.

The longer the government falls short of our expectations, the more likely the people will be to opt out of their own obligations, such as voting. This dangerous tit-for-tat is hard to reverse. A less effective government sparks a less dutiful public, which makes it harder for the government to perform, and so on.

Keep ReadingShow less
People wading in a river, in front of a destroyed house

Workers walk through the Rocky Broad River in Chimney Rock, N.C., near a home destoryed by Hurricane Helene.

Matt McClain/The Washington Post via Getty Images

Project 2025 would have 'catastrophic' impact on hurricane warnings

Raj Ghanekar is a student at Northwestern University and a reporter for the school’s Medill News Service.

Residents in the southeastern United States are still recovering from devastating damage brought on by back-to-back hurricanes. As federal, state and local officials continue working to deliver aid, experts say the country would be less prepared for future hurricanes if proposals included the conservative plan known as Project 2025 were to be put in place.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration houses the National Weather Service and National Hurricane Center, which are vital to predicting these cyclones. But the 920-page proposal published by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, argues NOAA “should be dismantled” and includes steps to undermine its authority and position leading the country’s planning for severe weather events, such as providing official emergency warnings.

Keep ReadingShow less
Destroyed mobile home

A mobile home destroyed by a tornado associated with Hurricane Milton is seen on Oct.12 in the Lakewood Park community of Fort Pierce, Fla.

Paul Hennesy/Anadolu via Getty Images

Disaster fatigue is a real thing. We need a cure.

Frazier is an assistant professor at the Crump College of Law at St. Thomas University and a Tarbell fellow.

Before I left for the airport to attend a conference in Washington, D.C., I double checked with my wife that she was OK with me leaving while a hurricane was brewing in the Gulf of Mexico. We had been in Miami for a little more than a year at that point, and it doesn’t take long to become acutely attentive to storms when you live in Florida. Storms nowadays form faster, hit harder and stay longer.

Ignorance of the weather is not an option. It’s tiring.

Keep ReadingShow less
Latino man sitting outside a motel room

One arm of the government defines homelessness narrowly, focusing on those living in shelters or on the streets. But another deparmtent also counts people living in doubled-up housing or motels as homeless.

Francine Orr/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

How conflicting definitions of homelessness fail Latino families

Arzuaga is the housing policy analyst for the Latino Policy Forum.

The majority of Latinos in the United States experiencing homelessness are invisible. They aren’t living in shelters or on the streets but are instead “doubled up” — staying temporarily with friends or family due to economic hardship. This form of homelessness is the most common, yet it remains undercounted and, therefore, under-addressed, partly due to conflicting federal definitions of homelessness.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development defines homelessness narrowly, focusing on those living in shelters or places not meant for habitation, such as the streets. This definition, while useful for some purposes, excludes many families and children who are technically homeless because they live in uncertain and sometimes dangerous housing situations but are not living on the streets. This narrow definition means that many of these “doubled up” families don’t qualify for the resources and critical housing support that HUD provides, leaving them to fend for themselves in precarious living situations.

Keep ReadingShow less